Maina Buba & Anor. V. Tela Musa & Anor. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

TSAMIYA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal, Damaturu in Yobe State. The respondents, as plaintiffs, sued the appellants – as defendants, before the Upper Area Court, Yusufari, in Yobe State, claiming, re-possession of the farmland belonging to their father, which they inherited but on migration to Gazama, they left it. When they came back they met the farm in possession of the appellants.

The case went on trial, whereby the trial court without hearing any evidence from both sides and after inspecting the farmland in dispute gave judgment in favour of the appellants. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the respondents appealed to the State Sharia Court of Appeal, Yobe, where the decision of the trial court, was set aside in favour of the respondent on the principle of Gasb’ (usurpation). The appellant being not satisfied with the decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal, then appealed to this court on two grounds of appeal as follows:

1. The Sharia Court of Appeal erred in law in assuming jurisdiction over land matters thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.

Particulars of error

(a) The subject matter of the case was for a declaration of title over farmland.

(b) The jurisdiction of the lower court is contained in section 277 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

2. The lower court erred in law in limiting right of appeal to Court of Appeal to 30 days.

Particulars of error

The law provides for three months period within which an aggrieved party can appeal.

It is to be noted that even though the appellant engaged a counsel, in the name of Aliyu A. Shehu, Esq., to represent him in this appeal, but the counsel abandoned his duty by refusing to appear before this court during the hearing of the appeal, talkless of filing brief as well as formulating issues for determination in this appeal.

The respondents, since no appellants’ brief filed, they are not expected to file respondents brief.

I should like to remind counsel that in all cases, criminal or civil, they should realise the enormous responsibility that they undertake when asked to shoulder the heavy burden of prosecuting or defending his client’s case. The ethics of the profession require and dictate that counsel should devote himself completely to this task, so that he may watch meticulously and constantly the interest of his duties in every case. This is one reason why our profession is called honourable. But every Barrister is expected to know his various, onerous, difficult and dedicated duties to his client. The counsel must conduct his client’s case to the end provided he is paid a proper fee.

If counsel can take his position, element of expectation in the conduct and preparation of cases would be injected.

But the great pity is that, from experience, some counsel do abandon this responsibility. This may lead the appeal or the case to be lost due to want of prosecution and himself (counsel) rendered liable for negligence to his client.Considering the position of this appeal this court will endeavour to formulate an issue or issues based on the facts, evidence, the records of proceedings and the grounds of appeal filed. See Order 7 rule 3(1) of this court’s Rules, 2002.

Thus this court formulates the following issues: